Effect Of G.A.T.T. On N.Z. Meat Exports

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 28008, 30 June 1956, Page 9

Effect Of G.A.T.T. On N.Z. Meat Exports

(Special Correspondent N.Z.P.A.) (Rec. 8 p.m.) LONDON, June 28. Surprise has been caused in London by statements from New Zealand on the Ottawa Pact and Imperial preferences. It was aroused, particularly, over a report from Wellington published by the “Financial Times” that New Zealand would strongly back Australia in an attempt to obtain revision of the pact and preferences and that “a number of complaints would probably be voiced during the Commonwealth Conference.” So far as can be gathered. New Zealand will follow closely the British and Australian talks on these subjects —which will take place outside the conference —but at this stage she has no intention of backing Australia or of raising complaints. A reported remark by Mr J. D. Ormond, chairman of the New Zealand Meat Producers’ Board, that London influences were trying to end the system of Imperial trade preferences also caused raised eyebrows. No move in this direction is being taken. New Zealand interests in Britain are well advised of the general situation. This is a brief summary of the position as it concerns meat exports. Before the war. under Ottawa, imports into Britain of foreign (including Argentine) meat were restricted bv quota. The quota for foreign chilled beef was 440.000 tons a year, thus giving the Dominions, including New Zealand. a preference. During the war all quotas and restrictions were removed and replaced bv bulk purchase contracts. ; When the meat market was freed from controls, meat was still scarce in Britain. Quotas were not reintroduced. and under an agreement with Argentina, which will end on June 30. there will be no restriction on exports of her chilled beef. These have increased this year to an annual rate of about 200.000 tons, still well below the pre-war quota, causing some fluctuation of prices. New Zealand, as well as British, farmers have been concerned at the higher rate of foreign imports, and would like to see them controlled. On the other hand, the British Government. preoccupied with the high cost of living, is not averse to lower prices for meat. Her own farmers are protected by subsidy.

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, to which New Zealand agreed in 1947, stipulates that quotas on meat should be replaced by tariffs. Policy of Britain At the moment Britain, requiring all the meat she can get as cheaply as possible, does not wish to apply tariffs to Argentine supplies—for domestic, political and trade reasons. The British Government is now negotiating a further agreement with Argentina, and in response to New Zealand representations that the principles of Ottawa should be safeguarded, ha? said that she will not enter into any commitments which would preclude her from “taking appropriate action having regard to the United Kingdom s international obligations.’’ It is reasonable to assume that Britain would not want to restrict imports of Argentine meat nor to have her export trade to Argentina affected. Britain has also agreed to exchange views on meat with New Zealand later in the year. Thus, the present position is: Britain, for domestic reasons, prefers no alterations to her meat imports. New Zealand wants the exports of her meat and their prices protected against Argentine imports. Britain and New Zealand are parties to Ottawa and to G.A.T.T. The ball is with New Zealand to : play. She has at least four alternatives. She can take no action in the hope that meat prices will not fall. She can ask. Britain to implement , Ottawa and reintroduce effective j quotas, and attempt to obtain a i waiver from G.A.T.T. | She can ask Britain to apply tariffs under G.A.T.T. j She can ask Britain for some kind of | guarantee for her meal exports. These are among the points now being discussed in New Zealand. But in London, although Britain still wants all the meat she can get and although both she and New Zealand are members of G.A.T.T.. and have both agreed to its terms, it is regarded as completely wrong to say that Britain is trying to end Imperial preferences. ■ These preferences have not operated for meat since 1939 and since then both countries have signed a new ini ternational agreement—G.A.T.T. I 1 “I have not heard of any move to I end the system of Imperial trade pref- . erences.” said the Prime Minister (Mr i Holland) commenting in London on • | Mr Ormond’s speech. » “These preferences played an imI portant part in maintaining the closest

possible economic tics among the Commonwealth countries. I am aware, of course, that there have been many changes in the pattern of overseas trade since the Ottawa agreement in 1932. “All the Commonwealth countries, through membership of G.A.T.T., have accepted the principle that more freedom in international trade is desirable. “At the same time G.A.T.T. recognises imperial preferences, and although there is a rule against new preferences, there is nothing which requires reductions in preferences. “In view of the great importance of the principles of the Ottawa agreement. the New Zealand Government would not consider holding discussions with the United Kingdom Government on any major changes without first consulting all the interested parties. including the farmers, manufacturers and commercial community.**